An Ocean of Change: What We Have Lost And What We Want To Save
I was born in Venice Lido, Italy, and as a child I often played on
the beach with my mask and dipnet. At sea I found crabs, seahorses,
starfish and other treasures that fascinated me. This passion for the
sea settled in my heart and as I grew up I enrolled at the University of
Padua to become a biologist. At the age of 22 I began to board
oceanographic and other vessels to study Mediterranean cetaceans. At the
time little was known about these animals and each sighting evoked a
strong emotion. I also sailed the ocean, but I can get seriously seasick
on rough seas and living on a boat was not for me. In the end, I found
an ideal setting by moving to the Island of Lošinj where, during former
Yugoslavia’s turmoil years, I rented a small house in the port of
Rovenska. With my inflatable boat, moored a few steps away, I went out
to sea to study a community of bottlenose dolphins. Back then, I was
unaware of the project being the first of this type in the
Mediterranean. Dolphin monitoring in that area continues to this day,
after over thirty years.
After Lošinj, I was lucky to study cetaceans in several other parts
of the Mediterranean. My colleagues and I have spent considerable time
observing free-ranging dolphins, and have written a number of
conservation-oriented scientific articles. Twenty-five years ago we
decided to study common dolphins in Ionian Greece, in an area inhabited
by one of the last communities of this species in the eastern
Mediterranean Sea. Common dolphins are wonderful animals and in the
1990s they were still abundant in those waters. We often spotted them in
the company of schools of tuna, busy feeding on sardines or anchovies.
After a decade, the common dolphin population had declined dramatically.
Our research showed that the main responsibility was of industrial
fishing: purse seiners and trawlers operated unsustainably, damaging the
ecosystem and wiping out the dolphin’s key prey. The solution could be
simple: reducing the industrial fishing effort and banning destructive
fishing methods. We made several calls for action, but these measures
were not taken.
Sadly, these types of measures are rarely taken, to the extent that
the Mediterranean Sea is the world’s most overexploited by fishing.
Within the Mediterranean, the Adriatic is the sea most affected by the
cumulative impact of human activities. Due to these impacts, the common
dolphin has completely disappeared. It was one of the most abundant
species in the Adriatic, and today there is no more. The bottlenose
dolphin still survives, but is considered vulnerable. How can bottlenose
dolphins survive? To understand this, we are carrying out a study on
the Italian side of the northern Adriatic, from the Tagliamento river to
the Po delta. In the context of this study we also monitor fishing
boats, and not infrequently we find bottlenose dolphins feeding behind
trawlers. It is a form of adaptation: these dolphins have learned to
take advantage of fishing activities, the same fishing that has
impoverished their environment.
In a world increasingly altered by humans, only the most adaptable
and opportunistic species can survive. These animals adapt their
behaviour and eat what is left, while the least resilient species
disappear. Those that are overfished also disappear. Fifteen years ago I
visited the fish market in Tripoli, Libya. Back then, industrial
fishing had just started in Libyan waters and there were still much
fish. I remember large groupers put on display, but the Libyan
fishmongers told me that those groupers were small, and that the really
big ones had all disappeared because of overfishing. Today, it is quite
difficult to imagine what the oceans used to be in the past. In the
first half of the twentieth century the sea was teeming with huge fish,
and even reputable scientists thought that marine resources were
“inexhaustible”. They turned out to be badly wrong. We have wiped out
much of the life in our oceans, destroying entire ecosystems. The large
fish are gone.
Dolphins and whales also die in fishing nets. The vaquita, a porpoise
living in the Gulf of California, has been decimated by incidental
catches in illegal fishing nets. Although the problem has been known for
many years, little action was taken to protect this small cetacean and
today there are only 20 individuals left: the last of their species.
Another dolphin, the baiji, was declared extinct in 2006. It lived on
our planet for millions of years, but could not withstand human impact.
The loss of species and biodiversity is a huge tragedy; the numbers and
the effects of this tragedy are appalling. Natural ecosystems have
halved, the biomass of wild mammals has decreased by more than 80%, and
one million species are at risk of extinction. In peer-reviewed
articles, scientists call it biological annihilation, biodiversity
collapse, the sixth mass extinction, and climate catastrophe. The crime
of ecocide has also been proposed. But who is responsible for such a
crime?
Over the course of my life (I am 55) the human population has more
than doubled. Today we are 7.7 billion people. The burning of fossil
fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.), produces carbon dioxide that
alters the climate — and pollutants that poison the atmosphere. Every
year, smoke from coal-burning kills more than half a million people.
Part of the carbon dioxide produced in excess is absorbed by the oceans,
but this makes them more acidic. The increase in acidity causes the
death of corals and the disappearance of coral reefs, an invaluable
biodiversity treasure. I am not an expert on climate change, but as a
biologist and researcher I regularly read the scientific literature and
am shocked by the ongoing and predicted effects of rising temperatures.
The present lack of political response to the climate emergency is
simply insane.
Plastic, which has become part of our daily life, does not disappear
after we throw it away. If it is not burned (producing toxic substances
such as dioxin), or exported to poorer countries, it is released into
the environment. Part of it ends up in the sea, where it floats on the
surface or covers the ocean floor. It is even found at the depth of ten
thousand meters, and in the stomachs of cetaceans. The Mediterranean is
the sea with the highest concentration of microplastics; being a closed
sea, all the plastic we pour in remains there. Plastic fragments and
fibers are now everywhere, they enter the food chain and sneak into our
body, with effects still unknown.
Pollution has made the air of big cities unbreathable. A recent study
by the University of Chicago shows that air pollution takes away an
average of 1.8 years of life to the entire human population. By
comparison, road accidents take 4.5 months; war and terrorism 22 days.
We have poisoned the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we
eat. These facts are reported daily, and perhaps we have become
gradually accustomed to them. Yet, they jeopardise the survival of
entire human communities, affect us personally, and threaten the next
generations even more.
So we have to do something, but what? Indeed, we can engage in
individual actions, collective actions, or both. For example, we can use
more sustainable means of transportation, and fly less, considering
that aviation produces large amounts of CO
2. We can choose
carefully what we buy and where to buy it, preferring locally sourced
food grown without the use of poisons. We can stop consuming meat,
because the global consumption of meat has unsustainable environmental
costs, and contributes to global warming. If we can’t do without eating
meat, we can at least reduce its consumption, pay attention to where it
comes from, and choose more sustainable products. The industry is slowly
adapting, with new plant-based products such as Beyond Meat and the
Impossible Burger (which meat-lovers find very good). We should also
stop eating fish, because we cannot keep devastating the sea. For the
record, eating farmed fish does not have a lower impact: farmed fish are
predators and fed with wild fish caught at sea. To produce a kilogram
of farmed fish, several kilos of fish are caught and turned into
pellets, fuelling overfishing. Finally, we can and should recycle, reuse
and above all reduce our consumption patterns.
Individual action, however, is not enough: collective action is also
desperately needed. Anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote: “Never doubt
that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the
world: indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” It is necessary to
mobilize, and the students’ protests and strikes seen in recent months
are effective warnings to steer humanity away from catastrophe. Last
April, in London, more than a thousand people were arrested as they
protested the government’s lack of response to the environmental and
climate emergency (the movement is called Extinction Rebellion). Some
may mock or dismiss these initiatives, but recent research shows that
they have great potential. In the last 100 years, non-violent campaigns
have been twice as successful as violent uprisings. These non-violent
protests are among the actions that really can change the world, and the
mechanism can be set in motion by a relatively small percentage of
“thoughtful, committed citizens”. Some research suggests that 3.5% of a
population can trigger significant change in politics and human
behaviour.
In addition to protest actions, initiatives to protect and restore
natural environments can also be effective. A recent article published
in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals, shows that
rebuilding natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon
dioxide. No doubt: we need more forests to save the planet. In the
oceans, posidonia beds and kelp meadows (the “forests” of the sea), and
indeed the phytoplankton, play the same role as plants on land. The
oceans help keep the planet in balance and that is one more reason to
protect them. Unfortunately, we are not doing so, and less than ever in
our Mediterranean.
Finally, individual actions can inspire collective actions.
Individual actions are rarely exclusively “individual”, because our
behaviour and choices affect those of others. On 20 August 2018,
15-years old Greta Thunberg started a school strike in front of the
Swedish Parliament, to ask for incisive climate action. Her individual
initiative has inspired millions of people around the world, giving life
to the Fridays for Future movement. After only seven months, 1.6
million people in 131 nations participated in the protest inspired by
Greta. Another example is Felix Finkbeiner. At the age of 9, he decided
to plant one million trees. Felix then founded the Plant for the Planet
movement and after only four years he achieved his goal. The motto of
his movement is “Stop talking, start planting.” Felix went on planting.
He is now 21 years old and thanks to him and his movement there are 15
billion more trees on our planet. In 2011, the United Nations entrusted
him with the management of the Billion Tree Campaign, which aims to
plant
one thousand billion trees.
The great primatologist Jane Goodall said “You cannot get through a
single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do
makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you
want to make.” One doesn’t have to be like Greta, Felix or Jane;
everyone can engage in the way that suits them best. We can set a good
example, involve others, mobilize, support those who act. Our small team
of marine conservation biologists has been trying to contribute by
studying dolphins in their natural environment, in the hope of
protecting them. However, it isn’t just about hope. As Emily Johnston
wrote, “Our job is not to
feel hope—that’s optional. Our job is to
be hope,
and to make space for the chance of a different future.” As long as
there is something beautiful and important to be protected, we can
always make a difference. And therefore we must.
––
Giovanni Bearzi, June 2019
